I borrowed Okami from a friend on the PS2. I was really looking forward to it, but it just totally bored me. Perhaps my mind was elsewhere, but the intro was horribly boring and long, the sound of people "talking" bugged the hell out of me, everything is ridiculously easy, the puzzles were pathetic (the camera kept pointing out the answers for me in a ... Sun (?) puzzle) and while I really digged the art style, everything was just so... dark and plain in the beginning. Perhaps that changes later on, I don't know, I couldn't keep playing it... All in all... very chore-like. But I'm willing to give it another shot since I admit I might have been pre-occupied...

That third screenshot sure looks amazing though.

Speaking of tp. Tried to play it again the other day. What a horrible let down that game turned out to be for me...

My mistake, 70,000 copies sold in Japan and 200,000 copies sold in America which made it 100th best selling game in 2006.

Still, 300,000 copies internationally is a really paltry sum especially for a big budget game by Capcom.

Wow, I always assumed it did better than that.

yeah, okami is mediocre at best.  like a lot of others i was enamored with the FILTER AND BLOOM visual style when i first heard about it, and the painting thing actually struck me as being a cool mechanic, but in actuality, it plays like any other boring zelda clone under the sun.  it's a pretty game, but considering it was trumped up to be some paragon of creativity and originality, it's literally one of the least ambitious games i've ever played in my life.  the LAST thing i was expecting was some generic action/adventure game with a few filters thrown over the graphics to make it look fresh, and that's basically exactly what i got.  the paint brush thing was pretty cool, and probably fitting for the wii controller, but it's such a minor part of the game that it doesn't go an especially long way towards redeeming it.

this and sotc were two ps2 games that came out at relatively the same time that i was anticipating as being interesting departures from typical games.  sotc was more or less exactly what i thought it would be and is still probably one of my favorite games, but this was pretty disappointing!  it sucks, because i think more idiots in the gaming media use okami as an example of GAMES AS ART than they ever will shadow of the colossus, which couldn't be further from the truth.  okami is the opposite of art, and it's a shame people let fucking painted visuals obscure that fact.

i just got the new GI, they loved this game O.O
it got #1 console game of the month and oddly the rating was a tad bit higher than brawls(in my opinion, brawl was a bit overatted but it is still an amazing game) and GI in my opinion does better reviews than ign but not as good as game trailers so i would listen to GI more than ign naturally.

GI's reviews suck ass.  GT is meh.

i just got the new GI, they loved this game O.O
it got #1 console game of the month and oddly the rating was a tad bit higher than brawls(in my opinion, brawl was a bit overatted but it is still an amazing game) and GI in my opinion does better reviews than ign but not as good as game trailers so i would listen to GI more than ign naturally.

i don't know why i'm even bothering with you here, but these are honestly all terrible sources for objective reviews.

shut up marcus

Actually I am with Marcus

I don't read reviews often anymore, I just go to metacritic or some dumb website like that to see the averaged scores. After that I pray to God that the reviewers are not screwing me and the game turns out to be good. Okami... Is a breath of fresh air from an artistic standpoint to say the least. Kudos to the late Clover Studio for achieving such a great look as they had done with all of their games, but honestly if I wanted to play Zelda I would just go and play Zelda. (Unless this is better than Zelda)

i agree with him in that no one should really be reading reviews as a reliable source of information about games, considering most are terrible and the large majority of gamers everywhere have ridiculous tastes and don't know what they're talking about most of the time.  BBBBUUTTT, given the context of my post, replying with "heh.... true objectivity... is as fleeting and elusive as a summer breeze...." wasn't really appropriate, because i'm pretty sure he knew what the hell i was talking about.  as in, not COMPLETELY 100% OBJECTIVE, but more like reasonably objective/reviews coming from someone without a clear agenda that relates to money.  is this more clear macus???

I've already pre-ordered this, should get here today or tomorrow.
I really really loved this game on the PS2 and I thought it was better than Twilight Princess (I liked TP as well though) but I can understand how those who don't like / are sick of the Zelda games wouldn't like this since it is pretty much a Zelda clone (although it's a damn good one). Although I recommend anyone who's a fan of Zelda-style games atleast give this game a try. Heck even those people who like Zelda games but are tired of them should give this a try since it's not completely the same as Zelda and it might just be the breath of fresh air you need.

I don't know man.  I'm pretty sure that if this actually happened it would leak to the internet somehow through an anonymous forum post or something and the internet would explode with vindication.  I really, really don't think that video game reviews are very far off the mark most of the time and I'm really tired of the videogame reviewers don't know anything meme.

Usually sites like 1Up or IGN score consistently around the review aggregator averages.  Considering that these sites always have their reviews up far in advance of the aggregators even having an average available this might speak at least for the consistency of their editors.

Are you kidding me?  How is this a MEME?  First of all, it's not "video game reviewers don't got anything on me heh," or whatever you're playing it up to be, it's "video game reviewers are clearly biased in a very obvious way and their editors probably have agendas and apply a pretty heavy hand to what types of reviews they put out."  Not everyone's as guilty of it as the worst ones are, but for magazines, it's absolutely true.  I don't even know how you can stand here and act like this is some wild, overrated conspiracy that couldn't possibly exist or something.  If most of your revenue comes from advertising, and your reviews often have a large effect on the amount of money your advertisers make, guess what you're NOT going to do?  I don't think it's too hard of a guess.  These publications exist, first and foremost, to make a profit, so above all else, it's in their best interest to appease the advertisers, and it's not too much of a stretch to say that they almost certainly don't do this by giving brutally honest reviews and costing advertisers millions of dollars.  It's just mutually beneficial to give even the bad games pretty solid reviews; the advertisers make money, and in turn you make money.  Plus, the consumer will trick himself into thinking that Tales of Symphonia is actually a good game.  It's a triple win!

But from whom would the Internet demand vindication?  This happens everywhere; it's completely universal.  You can't just go to one source and say THIS IS DISGUSTING, STOP IT, because I'm sure the vast majority of all publications, online or off, that have a substantial amount of advertisers end up doing this to some extent (probably a pretty large one).  I think you'd have to be pretty naive to legitimately think that MONEY doesn't play a very large factor.

I think Okami on PS2 was a great game, and I'm positive that this port will be too. But I can understand how people may not like this game. I guess it's only for the fans of the genre.